Alexsam, Inc. v. American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:21-cv-08116
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Aleksam v. American Express, Judge Hellerstein denied Aleksam’s request to pause the case and scheduled claim-construction proceedings.
Aleksam, Inc. and American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc.; Aleksam’s motion to stay was denied, and both parties must prepare and submit the joint claim-construction chart and follow the schedule set by the court.
What happened
In Aleksam, Inc. v. American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc., the court held a conference about how the case would proceed. Aleksam had asked the court to stay, or pause, the case.
The court denied that motion and directed the Clerk to close it. The court also scheduled a September 7, 2022 hearing to address the meaning of disputed claim terms before discovery begins.
Judge Hellerstein ordered the parties to submit a joint claim-construction chart by August 26, 2022, and scheduled a status conference after the hearing. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Alexsam, Inc. v. American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc · No. 1:21-cv-08116
- Alvin Hellerstein
- July 15, 2022
Background
The court held a status conference to discuss further proceedings. Plaintiff Aleksam, Inc. had filed a motion to stay the case, identified as ECF No. 23.
Rulings and Case Schedule
The court denied Aleksam’s motion to stay and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the open motion. The order did not add a limitation on refiling.
The court scheduled a Markman hearing for September 7, 2022, at 2:30 p.m., before discovery begins. A Markman hearing is a proceeding in which the court addresses the meaning of patent-claim terms. The parties must jointly submit a proposed claim-construction chart by August 26, 2022. The chart must include disputed or potentially disputed claim phrases, prior claim-construction rulings by Texas courts or the Federal Circuit, each party’s proposed construction, and a blank column for the court’s construction.
The parties were also ordered to confer and set dates for exchanging their proposed chart entries, responding to them, meeting to finalize the chart, and submitting it to the court. A further status conference was scheduled immediately after the September 7 hearing. The order regulated procedure and did not resolve the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.